also, aren't they supposed to actually hear arguments on the actual case before they rule on it? but maybe he figures the founding fathers were expecting judges to rule on they "knew" was right, rather than wasting time on actual facts.

So what qualifies as grounds for impeachment of a Justice?_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9702Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:40 am Post subject:

Death. I think that is it._________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

So basically there needs to be constitutional amend--- aww fuck yer right, it'll never happen._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 1973Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:09 pm Post subject:

Moved from the Random Stories thread...

Darqcyde wrote:

With SCOTUS, you never know.

When was it municipalities were given the right to utilize eminent domain? I remember it being discussed here on the forums, I just forget when that shit went down. Anywho, this is exactly the kinda shit that I was afraid was going to happen.

At the center of the case is a 30-acre neighborhood outside Philadelphia of two-story, attached row houses called The Gardens that is blighted and overrun by crime. In 2000, about 1,600 people lived in the neighborhood, about two-thirds of whom were black or Hispanic. Most household incomes were far below the town's $43,000 median.

Since 2002, Mount Holly officials have sought to demolish the homes and replace them with 520 mostly market-priced apartments and townhomes; 56 would be reserved for Gardens residents.

While about 260 families have moved out, many with relocation assistance from the town, about 70 remain, including about 30 that are parties to the lawsuit. They have charged that any redevelopment of the neighborhood would affect blacks and Hispanics more than whites and is therefore discriminatory.

Not true, the town argues in its recent brief to the court. The Fair Housing Act "prohibits intentional discrimination alone; it does not require local officials to use race as a criterion in determining how best to allocate limited resources in the context of redeveloping an entire section of a community," it says.

But proving intentional discrimination is "an extremely hard burden for a plaintiff," Pomar says." People don't leave memos that contain obvious smoking guns in this day and age."

The Obama administration and its civil rights allies aren't eager to fight this battle in a court with a 5-4 conservative majority. The Department of Justice intervened in the last case to get St. Paul officials to drop their appeal and settle with landlords, who had alleged that the city's aggressive enforcement policies reduced the amount of affordable housing for minorities.

Philly is fast on it's way to becoming one of the largest shitholes in the US. I like Philly, it's a nice place to visit, but so much is already horrible with how this state, Pennsylvania, is run, but in Philly it's x10._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Yeah, I saw the 404 page. Still, I see it as indicative of lazy practices, which is something you SHOULD NOT see in SCOTUS cases._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I disagree -- while I don't know about the practices of other courts, at least SCOTUS has saved the webpages as accessed, in whatever the Clerk of Court's case file is. And I'd be willing to bet that if you're looking up the case it's not that hard to ask for the case file as well, and that by the future the case file will be available online right alongside the opinions.

The separation of church and state doesn’t mean “the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued during a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, according to The Washington Times.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

one guesses that his definition of "religion" is at minimum "abrahamic" - but i'm guessing christian (with jews tolerated as pre-christians).

one almost wants to see a case before the court involving the religious rights of hindus, or some other non-abrahamic religion that is nevertheless a clearly recognized religion, just to see what contortions he would go through to show _that_ religion isn't one the government can favor._________________aka: neverscared!